I've trash talked the coaching staff so..,.

[California Husker]

 

 

 

Hey, if you guys think this coaching staff is doing a great job, they enjoy it. I think they are horrible. I have to admit I have been very disappointed, I listened to the hype about what an underrated coach Riley was and what a great fit he would be in Nebraska, blah, blah, blah...but he is a career .500 coach and it is pretty clear why.

 

I am not a fan of our last coach...it was time for him to go...but I was really hoping to get a GOOD coach, not this mess. But if you guys all think Riley is doing a good job, good for you. If you can watch this circus and think this is good coaching, then I guess it's all good for you. Nothing I can say is going to change your minds, nor would I want to. I was just discussing things. So enjoy Riley-Ball I guess. It's what we have. I just know it's not what we fans were promised.

 

What were we fans promised in year one?

 

Hey, if you like Riley, like I said...enjoy it. I'm glad someone likes him. I had some comments to make, if you don't agree, fine...whatever.

 

 

What were we fans promised in year one?

 

I never said Nebraska fans were promised anything in one year...he said he was going to coach to the strengths of the team. I don't think he has and I think he has let his ego get in the way of doing so.

[Bowfin]

What were we fans promised in year one?

 

Those in the know said any monkey could get nine wins at Nebraska with the talent they had and an easier schedule this year. So there is that...

[Joe_5700]

 

What were we fans promised in year one?

 

Those in the know said any monkey could get nine wins at Nebraska with the talent they had and an easier schedule this year. So there is that...

 

 

Many will agree that at least 4 of our losses rest squarely on the coaches shoulders for poor clock management, and play calling in the final crucial moments at the end of games.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

They have averaged 7.6 yards per passing attempt, and 4.7 yards per rushing attempt.

 

Have sacks been factored in as runs or passes in this math?

 

Because if one takes the 24 sacks with the -162 yards and count them as pass plays instead of running plays, it looks like 6.22 yards per rushing attempt and 6.77 yards per passing attempt.

 

 

That's very true. Nebraska's running game is actually better than the 4.7 number would imply, because it shouldn't be responsible for the sack total.

 

Nebraska is running the ball pretty well. The Huskers are also passing the ball pretty well. The argument remains the same.

 

And a Tommy Armstrong who completes 55% of his passes would be the Big 10 Offensive Player of the Year if he could cut his interceptions in half. He will probably receive votes as it stands. Hell, he was Big 10 Player of the Week with two interceptions against MSU.

 

If that's a square peg in a round hole, a lot of teams would live with it. If Nebraska had merely a Top 50 defense, this same Tommy Armstrong might be undefeated right now.

 

I'm all for second-guessing coaches. It's what fans do. But I haven't heard a legitimate argument for a better gameplan beyond wishful thinking and nostalgia.

[Moiraine]

 

 

They have averaged 7.6 yards per passing attempt, and 4.7 yards per rushing attempt.

 

Have sacks been factored in as runs or passes in this math?

 

Because if one takes the 24 sacks with the -162 yards and count them as pass plays instead of running plays, it looks like 6.22 yards per rushing attempt and 6.77 yards per passing attempt.

 

 

That's very true. Nebraska's running game is actually better than the 4.7 number would imply, because it shouldn't be responsible for the sack total.

 

 

But are you not comparing their running game to your perception of what a good running game is, based on what other teams have done in the past? Teams whose running stats include sack yards?

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

They have averaged 7.6 yards per passing attempt, and 4.7 yards per rushing attempt.

 

Have sacks been factored in as runs or passes in this math?

 

Because if one takes the 24 sacks with the -162 yards and count them as pass plays instead of running plays, it looks like 6.22 yards per rushing attempt and 6.77 yards per passing attempt.

 

 

That's very true. Nebraska's running game is actually better than the 4.7 number would imply, because it shouldn't be responsible for the sack total.

 

 

But are you not comparing their running game to your perception of what a good running game is, based on what other teams have done in the past? Teams whose running stats include sack yards?

 

 

I'm not doing much beyond countering Cal Husk's "statistical" argument that Nebraska is throwing away perfectly good plays whenever it decides to pass the ball.

[GBRFAN]

 

They have averaged 7.6 yards per passing attempt, and 4.7 yards per rushing attempt.

 

Have sacks been factored in as runs or passes in this math?

 

Because if one takes the 24 sacks with the -162 yards and count them as pass plays instead of running plays, it looks like 6.22 yards per rushing attempt and 6.77 yards per passing attempt.

 

I See what you did there. That was a nice way to tweak the stats for your point. Now why don't you include the yards gained scrambling out of the pocket on PASS plays that were counted as RUN plays. Don't have any hard facts, however would guess that Tommy has scrambled for about the same amount of yards that he has been sacked for.... Now we are back to 7+ for passing and 5ish for running.

[Bowfin]

I See what you did there. That was a nice way to tweak the stats for your point. Now why don't you include the yards gained scrambling out of the pocket on PASS plays that were counted as RUN plays.

 

Because a quarterback that scrambles didn't pass for positive yards, he ran for positive yards. A scramble is a run play that occurs after it is obvious that the pass play has failed. A sack is a pass play that fails before the quarterback realizes it failed and has a chance to turn it into a running play.

 

The best I can give you is adding another passing attempt for each scramble and give it ZERO yards.

 

 

Don't have any hard facts...

 

 

No you don't.

[Mavric]

 

 

This offense has been tailored to Tommy Armstrong's strengths.

 

One of those strengths is Tommy's confidence.

 

The confidence that allows Tommy to lead crazy last second comebacks against all odds is the same confidence that convinces him he can complete passes he probably shouldn't throw.

 

That's just the Tommy Armstrong package. Coaches give Tommy the leeway to make his own run/pass choices, which should play to his strengths. His roll-outs to the right are one of the most dangerous plays to defend. Tommy is choosing to ignore lot of open space in front of him, and try for that home run ball instead. He is completing enough of these highlight reel passes that you probably can't talk him down anymore. Everybody wishes he could complete more than 50% of his passes, but I don't think anyone is clamoring for Ryker Fyfe anymore, and that's the situation the coaches face. What else do you do with your turnover prone Big 10 Total Offense Leader?

 

We haven't abandon the run under Langsdorf. We didn't abandon it under Beck or Watson, either, although the complaints are nearly identical. There's a certain nostalgic Husker fan who remembers every incomplete first down pass, but never remembers when the runners get stuffed. They remember Imani Cross getting a solid 7 yard gain, but not the safe, simple 14 yard curl to Jordan Westerkamp. They insist the OC "stay with what works" but never admit that what's working is a balanced mix of running and passing.

 

It seem like a no brainer that the team that rushed out to a 21 point lead with 150 yards passing and 75 yards rushing stay with what works. The decision to run the ball more in the second half to burn clock is also a no-brainer, but only if you're stringing some first downs together, and we did just enough of that to protect the lead.

 

If you want to talk about coaches getting second-guessed, there are lots of games every weekend where a team goes conservative running the ball in the second half and ends up losing, because they stopped doing what worked well in the first half.

 

The Nebraska running game doesn't suddenly work because the coaches decided to run the ball more. The Nebraska running game works when the linemen block and the backs hit their holes and a mix of calls and RBs is enough to keep defenses guessing. Knowing the offense is capable and willing to burn you with a forward pass helps the cause.

The analytics would say that when you have a passer who is barely above .50 completion percentage it would be a bad idea to increase the number of those plays by 33% particularly when his completion percentage doesn't budge. It just doesn't make any sense, you are just throwing away offensive plays. You can try to make all the justifications you want but there is some pretty simple math involved here.

 

 

Not sure if analytics is your strong suit here.

 

Let's make the math really simple:

 

The Huskers have had 394 rushing plays and 396 passing plays this year.

 

They have averaged 7.6 yards per passing attempt, and 4.7 yards per rushing attempt.

 

No one is saying we should pass the ball more, but it would be a better argument than yours, which seems to suggest we should run more of those 4.7 yard plays, and stop wasting them on those fancypants 7.6 yard plays that have somehow managed to produce 26 touchdowns.

 

The run game, particularly with our current backs and offensive line, benefits greatly from a passing threat, even the current 55% variety.

 

 

Every time you make this argument you conveniently leave out how many turnovers each type of play has generated.

[GBRFAN]

 

I See what you did there. That was a nice way to tweak the stats for your point. Now why don't you include the yards gained scrambling out of the pocket on PASS plays that were counted as RUN plays.

 

Because a quarterback that scrambles didn't pass for positive yards, he ran for positive yards. A scramble is a run play that occurs after it is obvious that the pass play has failed. A sack is a pass play that fails before the quarterback realizes it failed and has a chance to turn it into a running play.

 

The best I can give you is adding another passing attempt for each scramble and give it ZERO yards.

 

 

Don't have any hard facts...

 

 

No you don't.

 

A scramble is a result of a pass play - just as a sack is a result of a pass play. Can't have it both ways. Nice effort thou.....

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

This offense has been tailored to Tommy Armstrong's strengths.

 

One of those strengths is Tommy's confidence.

 

The confidence that allows Tommy to lead crazy last second comebacks against all odds is the same confidence that convinces him he can complete passes he probably shouldn't throw.

 

That's just the Tommy Armstrong package. Coaches give Tommy the leeway to make his own run/pass choices, which should play to his strengths. His roll-outs to the right are one of the most dangerous plays to defend. Tommy is choosing to ignore lot of open space in front of him, and try for that home run ball instead. He is completing enough of these highlight reel passes that you probably can't talk him down anymore. Everybody wishes he could complete more than 50% of his passes, but I don't think anyone is clamoring for Ryker Fyfe anymore, and that's the situation the coaches face. What else do you do with your turnover prone Big 10 Total Offense Leader?

 

We haven't abandon the run under Langsdorf. We didn't abandon it under Beck or Watson, either, although the complaints are nearly identical. There's a certain nostalgic Husker fan who remembers every incomplete first down pass, but never remembers when the runners get stuffed. They remember Imani Cross getting a solid 7 yard gain, but not the safe, simple 14 yard curl to Jordan Westerkamp. They insist the OC "stay with what works" but never admit that what's working is a balanced mix of running and passing.

 

It seem like a no brainer that the team that rushed out to a 21 point lead with 150 yards passing and 75 yards rushing stay with what works. The decision to run the ball more in the second half to burn clock is also a no-brainer, but only if you're stringing some first downs together, and we did just enough of that to protect the lead.

 

If you want to talk about coaches getting second-guessed, there are lots of games every weekend where a team goes conservative running the ball in the second half and ends up losing, because they stopped doing what worked well in the first half.

 

The Nebraska running game doesn't suddenly work because the coaches decided to run the ball more. The Nebraska running game works when the linemen block and the backs hit their holes and a mix of calls and RBs is enough to keep defenses guessing. Knowing the offense is capable and willing to burn you with a forward pass helps the cause.

The analytics would say that when you have a passer who is barely above .50 completion percentage it would be a bad idea to increase the number of those plays by 33% particularly when his completion percentage doesn't budge. It just doesn't make any sense, you are just throwing away offensive plays. You can try to make all the justifications you want but there is some pretty simple math involved here.

 

 

Not sure if analytics is your strong suit here.

 

Let's make the math really simple:

 

The Huskers have had 394 rushing plays and 396 passing plays this year.

 

They have averaged 7.6 yards per passing attempt, and 4.7 yards per rushing attempt.

 

No one is saying we should pass the ball more, but it would be a better argument than yours, which seems to suggest we should run more of those 4.7 yard plays, and stop wasting them on those fancypants 7.6 yard plays that have somehow managed to produce 26 touchdowns.

 

The run game, particularly with our current backs and offensive line, benefits greatly from a passing threat, even the current 55% variety.

 

 

Every time you make this argument you conveniently leave out how many turnovers each type of play has generated.

 

 

Conveniently?

 

Geez, who wouldn't want Tommy to bring his interceptions down?

 

Running backs are actually fumbling less this year. That's been one thing in Newby's favor. When both Ameer and Cross were making costly fumbles the past two years, it wasn't the result of running the ball too much. It was poor ball protection. Nobody was saying "why do we insist on running the ball?!" although it would have made just as much sense as the pass-bashing.

 

Running the ball sets up the pass. Passing the ball sets up the run. Turnovers suck. But the notion that Nebraska can declare its intention to pound the rock and defenses will bend to our will needs to be retired. Also, that reasonably balanced offense is pretty exciting and puts up enough points to win on teams with better defenses. Not sure why it makes so many fans so grumpy.

[74Hunter]

 

 

 

I See what you did there. That was a nice way to tweak the stats for your point. Now why don't you include the yards gained scrambling out of the pocket on PASS plays that were counted as RUN plays.

 

Because a quarterback that scrambles didn't pass for positive yards, he ran for positive yards. A scramble is a run play that occurs after it is obvious that the pass play has failed. A sack is a pass play that fails before the quarterback realizes it failed and has a chance to turn it into a running play.

 

The best I can give you is adding another passing attempt for each scramble and give it ZERO yards.

 

Don't have any hard facts...

 

No you don't.

A scramble is a result of a pass play - just as a sack is a result of a pass play. Can't have it both ways. Nice effort thou.....

The NFL disagrees, but carry on.

[Mavric]

 

 

 

 

This offense has been tailored to Tommy Armstrong's strengths.

 

One of those strengths is Tommy's confidence.

 

The confidence that allows Tommy to lead crazy last second comebacks against all odds is the same confidence that convinces him he can complete passes he probably shouldn't throw.

 

That's just the Tommy Armstrong package. Coaches give Tommy the leeway to make his own run/pass choices, which should play to his strengths. His roll-outs to the right are one of the most dangerous plays to defend. Tommy is choosing to ignore lot of open space in front of him, and try for that home run ball instead. He is completing enough of these highlight reel passes that you probably can't talk him down anymore. Everybody wishes he could complete more than 50% of his passes, but I don't think anyone is clamoring for Ryker Fyfe anymore, and that's the situation the coaches face. What else do you do with your turnover prone Big 10 Total Offense Leader?

 

We haven't abandon the run under Langsdorf. We didn't abandon it under Beck or Watson, either, although the complaints are nearly identical. There's a certain nostalgic Husker fan who remembers every incomplete first down pass, but never remembers when the runners get stuffed. They remember Imani Cross getting a solid 7 yard gain, but not the safe, simple 14 yard curl to Jordan Westerkamp. They insist the OC "stay with what works" but never admit that what's working is a balanced mix of running and passing.

 

It seem like a no brainer that the team that rushed out to a 21 point lead with 150 yards passing and 75 yards rushing stay with what works. The decision to run the ball more in the second half to burn clock is also a no-brainer, but only if you're stringing some first downs together, and we did just enough of that to protect the lead.

 

If you want to talk about coaches getting second-guessed, there are lots of games every weekend where a team goes conservative running the ball in the second half and ends up losing, because they stopped doing what worked well in the first half.

 

The Nebraska running game doesn't suddenly work because the coaches decided to run the ball more. The Nebraska running game works when the linemen block and the backs hit their holes and a mix of calls and RBs is enough to keep defenses guessing. Knowing the offense is capable and willing to burn you with a forward pass helps the cause.

The analytics would say that when you have a passer who is barely above .50 completion percentage it would be a bad idea to increase the number of those plays by 33% particularly when his completion percentage doesn't budge. It just doesn't make any sense, you are just throwing away offensive plays. You can try to make all the justifications you want but there is some pretty simple math involved here.

 

 

Not sure if analytics is your strong suit here.

 

Let's make the math really simple:

 

The Huskers have had 394 rushing plays and 396 passing plays this year.

 

They have averaged 7.6 yards per passing attempt, and 4.7 yards per rushing attempt.

 

No one is saying we should pass the ball more, but it would be a better argument than yours, which seems to suggest we should run more of those 4.7 yard plays, and stop wasting them on those fancypants 7.6 yard plays that have somehow managed to produce 26 touchdowns.

 

The run game, particularly with our current backs and offensive line, benefits greatly from a passing threat, even the current 55% variety.

 

 

Every time you make this argument you conveniently leave out how many turnovers each type of play has generated.

 

 

Conveniently?

 

Geez, who wouldn't want Tommy to bring his interceptions down?

 

Running backs are actually fumbling less this year. That's been one thing in Newby's favor. When both Ameer and Cross were making costly fumbles the past two years, it wasn't the result of running the ball too much. It was poor ball protection. Nobody was saying "why do we insist on running the ball?!" although it would have made just as much sense as the pass-bashing.

 

Running the ball sets up the pass. Passing the ball sets up the run. Turnovers suck. But the notion that Nebraska can declare its intention to pound the rock and defenses will bend to our will needs to be retired. Also, that reasonably balanced offense is pretty exciting and puts up enough points to win on teams with better defenses. Not sure why it makes so many fans so grumpy.

 

 

Considering it's a large factor in how successful both types of plays are and yet you never seem to mention it when you bring up how many more yards per play the passing game averages than the running game, it would seem that it's convenient to your argument to not include those stats.

 

Yards per play is a very good indicator of the effectiveness of your offense but when you don't factor in the turnovers, you're not getting the full picture of how it affects the entire game. A couple unsuccessful running plays and a 45 yard punt can a lot better than an interception in terms of starting field position for the opponent. The Rutgers game shows that pretty plainly. Thus those "fancypants" passing plays aren't necessarily as good as the stats you usually point out try to make them look.

 

I definitely agree that you need to be able to both run and throw. I think we could run the ball better if we chose to call more run plays that had a higher chance to be successful. We did that against Minnesota and Michigan State. We seemed to revert back to a lot less downhill, off-tackle runs against Rutgers despite that being what worked well against Michigan State. So I believe - and have said so all year - that a lot of the "problems" we've had trying to run the ball have more to do with the type of running plays that we've called a lot of the time rather than lack of skill or execution. But that doesn't show up in your stats.

[GBRFAN]

 

 

 

I See what you did there. That was a nice way to tweak the stats for your point. Now why don't you include the yards gained scrambling out of the pocket on PASS plays that were counted as RUN plays.

 

Because a quarterback that scrambles didn't pass for positive yards, he ran for positive yards. A scramble is a run play that occurs after it is obvious that the pass play has failed. A sack is a pass play that fails before the quarterback realizes it failed and has a chance to turn it into a running play.

 

The best I can give you is adding another passing attempt for each scramble and give it ZERO yards.

 

Don't have any hard facts...

 

No you don't.

A scramble is a result of a pass play - just as a sack is a result of a pass play. Can't have it both ways. Nice effort thou.....

The NFL disagrees, but carry on.

 

Do you have a link on this. I don't know anyone that would not agree that scrambles and sacks are a result of a pass play being called.

[California Husker]

Look, you have a great player in Tommy. I love the guy. However, he is not particularly successful passing the ball.

You have a coaching staff that comes in and can look at the stats. Here is a starting QB who had a completion percentage of around .53 from last season...just over fifty percent. When you throw an incomplete pass the net is zero yards gained.

So, you increase his attempted passes by 33.3%? That means that 33.3% more of your plays have a 47% chance of failure? That just doesn't seem like it makes good sense. I never said pull Tommy from the game. Anyone who knows me knows I will criticize the coaches pretty harshly, but not the players. My only objection here is that having Tommy throw the ball THAT MUCH plays to his weaknesses, not to his strengths and the coaches should recognize that.